Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Nov 2010 23:10 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Internet Explorer There's a bit of a ruckus on the web about how Microsoft was supposedly cheating when it comes to Internet Explorer 9's performance on benchmarks. Digitizor, as well as some enterprising readers over at HackerNews, came to the conclusion that Microsoft included code in IE9 specifically to ace the SunSpider benchmark. I was ready to write a scathing article about this, - until I loaded up the IEBlog. As it turns, it's not cheating, it's not a bug - it's an actual piece of smart code optimisation other browsers don't have yet.
Thread beginning with comment 450444
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, my scores are posted above, with a lot of cruft, sorry. Basically the same results on a 6 Core AMD with 8 gigs of RAM...

Chrome still feels snappiest to me... FF B7 next followed by IE9. It's probably all just some weird perception thing since page rendering times between the three cannot be vastly different.

I am using FF B7 to write this post.

But as an aside, I thought FF was going to use process isolation for tabs like Chrome in FF4? It isn't, apparently. Comparatively speaking, FF B7 uses about 10000K more of RAM than Chrome 9...

Reply Parent Score: 2

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Yeah, my scores are posted above, with a lot of cruft, sorry. Basically the same results on a 6 Core AMD with 8 gigs of RAM...

Chrome still feels snappiest to me... FF B7 next followed by IE9. It's probably all just some weird perception thing since page rendering times between the three cannot be vastly different.

I am using FF B7 to write this post.

But as an aside, I thought FF was going to use process isolation for tabs like Chrome in FF4? It isn't, apparently. Comparatively speaking, FF B7 uses about 10000K more of RAM than Chrome 9...


Mate, you did a great job earlier by including uncertainties in your benchmark duration analyses and showing how in som cases the time differences are statistically insignificant. Now you'v just let yourself down worrying about an extra 10 MB memory usage on a machine you boast has 8 GB RAM. How sigificant is that? It's pretty meaningless these days unless you are on an severely constrained embedded system (even they are starting to get large amounts of memory since it is so easy to work with and so cheap to manufacture). Keep up the good stats work though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

LOL!

True... but I come from a time when you used variable naming conventions that consisted of a max of 6 characters for a variety of reasons, and memory management had to be very aggressive. It still shocks me that mainframes could manage 60 people on 64 MB of ram; I have not only a super computer today, but a super-DUPER computer by the computing standards of the 70's and 80's.

Reply Parent Score: 2